Evidence Outline



Burdens 3

Burden of Persuasion Generally 4

Sentencing Guidelines 6

Presumptions 8

Criminal Presumptions ( Really permissible Inferences 10

Hearsay 11

Categories of statements for non-hearsay 13

Prior Statements 16

Prior Reported Testimony 19

Admissions 21

Hearsay Exceptions 23

Declaration Against Interest 24

Spontaneous, Contemporaneous and Excited Utterances 26

Physical or Mental Condition of Declarant 27

Business Entries and Public Records 29

Miscellaneous Exceptions 32

Constitutional Considerations 33

Circumstantial Evidence 35

Raw Probability 35

Evidence of prior Wrongdoing 37

Character Evidence 39

Prior Similar Acts 40

Habit and Custom 41

Evidence Outline

• Model of Law

o Syllogism

▪ Major premise: rule of law

• Determined by substantive law

• To be discovered

▪ Minor Premise: facts

• Objective reality to be discovered.

• Domain of Evidence law: figuring out the minor premise

o Must assume:

▪ Objective reality exists, and

▪ Knowable by humans

▪ Hard to close the syllogism with certainty

• Inherent uncertainty

o ( use burdens of proof and production to manage uncertainty and deflect error.

Burdens

| 0% probability X 100% probability |

A -DV for ∆- B -jury question- C -DV for π(not crim.)- D

Production Burden Production Burden shift

• Burden of Production

o Must reach at least B

o Amount of evidence needed to have a trial

o Changes depending on burden of persuasion

o Tendency to place on party who has peculiar knowledge or control over evidence

• Burden of Persuasion

o Must Reach somewhere between B and C to reach jury, beyond C judge can say as a matter of law you have met your burden of persuasion

▪ Except for Criminal case, defendant always has right to jury trial.

o How certain fact finder must be to determine something is true

o Preponderance = 50.1%

o Clear and Convincing + 75%

o Beyond a Reasonable Doubt = 95+%

Burden of Persuasion Generally

• Every element of an offense must be proved BRD – In re Winship

o What is a Winship Fact?

▪ Affects level of moral culpability

▪ Affect level of sentencing/penalty?

▪ Historically been considered such a fact in our system?

o Facts of Winship

▪ Civil proceeding for crime committed by minor

▪ Still had to use BRD because of types of facts

o Policy of BRD

▪ Didn’t exist until 1798

▪ Shows greater fear of convicting innocent than acquitting guilty

▪ Here, might be better to keep kids out of juvy

• Can’t shift burden of proof re mental state to defendant – Mullaney

o In line with Winship

o Issue of Maine law shifting burden to D once state has proved intentional homicide

▪ D had to disprove purpose, show heat of passion by a preponderance

o Purpose is an element of the crime ( Winship Fact

▪ Government should have to prove BRD

▪ Impact on your sentencing

▪ Historical stigma between malice aforethought and heat of passion

▪ ( due process clause kicks in

o Policy

▪ This is about a purely subjective inquiry: what was in defendant’s head?

• Can’t know for sure

• Better to have burden on prosecution, give Defendant the benefit of the doubt

• State CAN shift burden of proof re mitigating facts in an affirmative defense when not an explicit element of the crime(collateral defense) – Patterson v. New York

o Affirmative defense of EED could bump you down from onw crime(murder 2) to manslaughter

o Erosion of Winship

▪ Crafty statute construction can remove some of government’s burden

▪ Functional Approach:

• Powell dissent: substance is what matters, this has same effect as element of crime, should be a Winship fact

▪ Formalistic approach

• White, majority: form matters more than substance

• Functional approach does not give states enough flexibility

o Or, does the Collision v. Collateral defense dichotomy solve this?

▪ Collision Defense – must be disproved by the state ( Winship

• Can’t coexist with the crime

• Alibi defense

• Heat of Passion in Mullaney

▪ Collateral Defense – must be proved by Defendant ( NOT Winship

• Coexists with the crime, just affects punishment

o EED in Patterson

• Important for D to bear burden – he knows more about these factors, otherwise state would not put mitigating factors into statute if it had to prove them.

o Maybe it is an issue of presumptions

▪ Presumption created by statute in Mullaney, can’t do this in criminal case.

▪ No Presumption in Patterson

• Self-Defense is an exculpatory defense, OK to shift burden to D ( Martin v. Ohio

o Incompatible with Mullaney

o White Majority

▪ Crime and self-defense can coexist, collateral defense

▪ Self-defense is not an element of the crime

o Powell, Dissent

▪ Issues of jury confusion: who has to prove what and by how much?

▪ Self-defense could negate element of crime: premeditation.

• Can shift burden for Duress Defense to Defendant ( Dixon

o No statutory defense of Duress as in Martin

o Prosecution: This is not Winship because you can satisfy all elements of the crime even if there is duress

o Defense:

▪ Malice aforethought is negated by duress

• Insanity is not a Winship Fact, can shift Burden to Defendant ( Clark v. Arizona

o History:

▪ Traditionally an affirmative defense

▪ 1895 SCOTUS Davis

• gov. must prove sanity BRD

• if insane, don’t have necessary mens rea

▪ Some courts shift Production Burden to D

• Just have to bring it into play

• Poduce enough to give a reasonable person a reasonable doubt

▪ Leland v. Oregon 1952

• D must prove insanity BRD, shifted Burden of Proof

▪ After Reagan assassination:

• P only needs to prove sanity by a preponderance

o Clark v. Arizona

▪ Arizona Rule: Defendant must establish insanity by clear and convincing evidence

▪ Three types of insanity evidence:

• Lay person observations

• Medical testimony

• Diagnostic

▪ This ruling keeps out medical testimony, disgnostic testimony. Can still have lay testimony

• Really a case about controlling expert testimony

• ( Formalism has trumped everything. Defenses are no longer defenses.

Sentencing Guidelines

• Any fact other than prior conviction that goes beyond statutory maximum BRD to a jury ( Apprendi v. New Jersey

o Hate crime determination happened after trial to raise sentence

o Imposed sentence above maximum for convicted crime

o Prior conviction can be used because it was proved BRD ( Almendarez-Torres

o All facts relevant to sentencing must be charged in the indictment

• Can’t up to death after jury convition ( AZ v. Ring

• Can’t have post-conviction hearing to increase sentence beyond statutory maximum ( Blakely v. Washington

o Sentencing guidelines

o Post-conviction hearing held re cruelty

o Violates 6th Amendment because it went above maximum

• Federal sentencing guidelines are not mandatory, only advisory ( Booker v. Washington

o Post conviction judicial determination of aggravating factors increased sentence beyond statutory maximum

o 6th Amendment and due process/Winship guarantees

o Policy:

▪ could lead to really high statutory maximums and you just stay below them

• OK if post conviction fact finding imposes higher sentence than jury, so long as it is within the maximum ( McMillan

• Mandatory Minimums are OK ( McMillan

o Judge could have done it anyway

• Indeterminate sentencing systems ok ( Williams

o Judge has discretion to chose from death, life or 20 years if convicted of murder

o

• Policy Issues

o Might lead to statutorily imposed high maximums from which you deviate downwards

o The more you constrain judge with guidelines, maximums, the more likely his sentence will be unconstitutional. If you give unfettered power, more consitutional

o The more clear a judge is for reasons, the more unconstitutional.

o This unfettered discretion goes against whole purpose of sentencing guidelines:

▪ Predicatibilty

▪ Fairness

▪ Direct imposition of will of people

• Could we ever get back functionalism?

o Once there is a sufficiently high statistical probability that if you do X you get Y, but you get Z if Q exists people might start changing system

o Will be Death penalty case where difference is between life and death, determined by judge

Presumptions

FRE 301 – presumption imposes on party the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or eet the presumption. Does not shift burden of proof

FRE 302 – state law presumptions apply.

• Reasons for presumption

o Fact is hard to prove, but you know it is there

▪ Escape from inescapable dilemma

o Makes person who knows facts better prove them

o Make trials accord with our ideas of justice, social policy

• Basic Types of Presumptions

o Irrebutable/Conclusive presumption of law

▪ Absolute requirement that fact is true

▪ Presumption of legitimacy of child born during wedlock – Wareham v. Wareham

▪ Really just a policy choice

▪ Fundamentally a rule of la

o Permissive presumption, Inference

▪ You may find the presumed fact if first fact is proved

▪ Satisfies production burden but does not shift it

o Rebuttable Presumption

▪ If you prove the basic fact, you must assume the presumed fact absent evidence to the contrary

▪ If unrebutted, you have met burden of proof

▪ CANNOT exist in Criminal cases, violation of 6A

• Types of Rebuttable Presumptions

o Morgan

▪ Shifts production burden AND persuasion burden

▪ Criticism: too strong

o Morgan Plus

▪ Guaranteed trip to the Jury

▪ Ex. Presumption of Innocence

o Thayer

▪ Shifts the production burden, but not persuasion

▪ Can be popped by a scintilla of evidence

▪ Criticism: toothless

▪ Federal rule

▪ Judge made presumptions are presumed to be Thayer

o Thayer Plus

▪ Shifts production burden, not persuasion

▪ Need substantial, credible evidence to pop

▪ Criticism: almost no analytically precise way of saying how much evidence is needed to do that

▪ Might be better off with a permissible inference

▪ NY Rule

▪ O’Dea v. Amadeo

• Presumption that a family member driving the car has permission for car insurance purposes

• Court decided that legislature could not have wanted a weak Thayer presumption, so need believable contrary evidence to pop.

• Thayer, or Thayer Plus ( Hinds v. John Hancock Insurance

o Presumption against suicide

o Plaintiff invoked presumption

o Defendant, insurance company, had to present enough evidence that jury could find at least 50/50 chance of presumed fact. They did

o Plaintiff had no extra evidence beyond presumption

o Only a Morgan Plus could have sustained original verdict, so it is not a Morgan plus

• Jessup

o Presumption that person charged with drug felony is a flight risk

o Breyer saves it by making it a recommendation to judge

▪ Like in Sentencing Guidelines case.

• Thayer ( Burdine

o Issue of how much evidence needed to rebut McDonnell Douglas burden shift.

▪ McDonnell Douglas was SCOTUS response to too many DV’s against minorities due to lack of direct evidence

o Plaintiff still has persuasion burden

o Why is this still good for Plaintiffs?

▪ Makes Defendant respond, opens door to evidence

▪ Facts are still being sucked out, so not as strong a need to shift persuasion burden.

Criminal Presumptions ( Really permissible Inferences

• County of Ulster v. Allen

o Presumption of common possession of weapons and drugs found in car

▪ But, can’t convict on only presumption

▪ Need something more plus presumption

o Policy issues

▪ You are aggregating dependant facts to reach BRD

▪ Inefficient case by case analysis

▪ No way to separate the strength of presumption and strength of evidence

• Can’t use “resumption” rebutted” ( Francis v. Franklin

o Makes it look like burden of persuasion is on Defendant

o Confuses jury

• Harmless Error for presumption jury charges ( Rose v. Clark

o Evidence in this case was so overwhelming that it couldn’t have made rational difference that jury instruction was improper, so harmless error

o Policy Issues

▪ Looks like a Directed Verdict

▪ Taking power away from the Jury

▪ Due Process problems for cases where there is less evidence

▪ ( many states have adopted dissenting rules

Hearsay

FRE 801

(a) Statement. A “statement” is

(1) an oral or written assertion or

(2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.

(b) Declarant. A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement.

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

(d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if--

(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is

(A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or

(B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or

(C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or

(2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is

(A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or

(B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or

(C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or

(D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or

(E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The contents of the statement shall be considered but are not alone sufficient to establish the declarant's authority under subdivision (C), the agency or employment relationship and scope thereof under subdivision (D), or the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered under subdivision (E).

• What is hearsay all about?

o Way of filtering out inappropriate communication, communication we don’t trust

o ( must have cross-examination on both input and output

▪ Sixth Amendment right of confrontation

• Communication Breakdowns

o Input

▪ Perception – dark, no glasses, etc.

▪ Memory lapse – time passes, forget

o Output

▪ Ambiguity – not very good at explaining

• Witness fills in spaces

▪ Voracity – lying witness

• Components of Hearsay

o Declarant

▪ Out of court figure

o Witness

▪ Person in court

▪ Can be same as declarant when dealing with prior statements

o Proponent

▪ Party trying to introduce hearsay

o Statement

o Purpose

▪ If for truth ( hearsay problem

• Leake v. Hagert

o Tried to get in out of court statement regarding lights on tractor for the truth of the matter. Inadmissable.

▪ If for fact that it was said ( not a hearsay problem

• Overview of Hearsay

o Not hearsay – not for the truth

▪ Verbal impact

▪ Legal impact

▪ State of mind

o Not Hearsay

▪ Not a statement

• Not assrted – implied

• Prior inconsistent/Consistent statement

o Rationale: cross-examination substitute

o Not-Hearsay

▪ Party Admission – for truth

• Test at point it is Used

o Not utterance

• Ratioanle: desire to use confessions as lynchpin of system

o Self-cross

• Pressure

o 5th Amendment

▪ Categories of statements for non-hearsay

o Verbal impact statement

▪ Often declarant is anonymous

▪ Shouted warning, contributory negligence situation

• Safeway v. Combs

o Plaintiff slipped in ketchup, issue of whether she was warned

o Warning was properly admitted at trial

o (additional issue of whether you follow state of federal rule, trial court followed Georgia v. Reeves, overturned on appeal by using federal rule)

▪ Law makes it relevant whether person heard something

▪ How to Test?

• Assume statement was a lie, would it still have legal significance?

▪ Central of Georgia v. Reeves

• Georgia disallows statements from a doctor of serious diagnosis to show mental anguish

• ( opens door to too much out of court testimony

• Other states allow this in, though

o Statements of independent legal significance

▪ “I accept” in contract situation

▪ Defamation

• Hickey v. Settlemier

o Statements directly said on show(#1and #2) , AND Statements made, relayed during show (#3)

o #1 and #2 are admissible ( under defamation the fact that something was said(published) is of independent legal significance

o #3 is inadmissbale ( double hearsay.

▪ Statement to reporter is not hearsay because of the independent legal significance of the statement. Even if it was a lie, it would still be relevant.

▪ The reporter’s statement to the video is hearsay because it is only offered for the truth that defendant said it. If reporter was lying, it would no longer be relevant. There is no exception for this hearsay, so it is inadmisible

▪ Words create legal entitlement

• Hanson v. Johnson

o “that is your corn” created legal entitlement to the corn mentioned.

▪ Based on substantive law of property in the state

o Sharecropper is long gone, but landowner needs this statement to prevent bank from taking all corn to ay of mortgage

o Policy Issues

▪ Person with most motive to lie is allowed to testify: landowner want to get his corn

o State of mind

▪ Mental condition of declarant

• State of mind statements must also be relevant: Banks v. State

o Expressions of fear of boyfriend to mother before girlfriend kills boyfriend are inadmissible to prove his state of mind.

▪ Want to get in to show boyfriend was afraid of girlfriend

o Statements wanted for their truth – that abuse happened, not for state of mind

o Court finds prejudicial value outweighed the probative

▪ Prejudicial nature can outweigh probative: U.S. v. Reyes

• Prosecution sought to admit statements by witness in drug case about the defendant’s involvement to show the customs agent’s state of mind

o But really to get at truth of person’s involvement

o

• Court ruled this was too prejudicial, so not admitted

o Analysis under FRE 403:

▪ Does it address important disputed issue in trial?

• Same info from uncontested source?

▪ Made by knowledgeable declarant, likely to be credited by jury?

▪ Will declarant testify?

• If so, will he say the same thing?

• Is statement admissible as prior consistent or inconsistent statement?

▪ Can curative or limiting instructions protect against misuse or prejudice?

• Neuborne: this should have been inadmissible because it was an implied statement

▪ Often for lay evidence of insanity

▪ Can think of them as non-assertive statements – implied statements

• Implied statements are hearsay: Wright v. Doe d. Tathum

o Issue of letters being used to prove sanity

▪ No obviously crazy talk in the letters

o Letters used to show state of mind, but really it matters for the truth of sanity

• Policy issues with implied statements

o Higher risk of ambiguity, but lower risk of no voracity

o under common law don’t actually allow these in

• But, allowed in under FRE ( Headley v. Tilghman

o Non-assertive statement of person asking “are you up, are you ready” when calling phone at suspected drug dealer’s house allowed to be use to show that this is in fact a drug dealer’s house

• Problem case: Kinder v. Commonwealth

o Cop testifies to minor pointig to building with stolen goods

▪ Judge ruels that this is conduct, not speech, so it is not hearsay

▪ Used to show state of mind of child

• But only matters in so far as it is true

o Danger: moving beyond what is in declarant’s head. Moving back to why they think this, basis for state of mind.

• Policy issues

o Don’t trust memory of declarant

▪ What if it was written down by declarant?

• NO, still can’t cross declarant

▪ What if sworn to?

• Same deal

Prior Statements

FRE 801(d)

(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is

(A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or

(B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or

(C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or

• Type of hearsay, even though declarant is in court

• Policy: two competing nightmares

o Prosecution nightmare – witness intimidation to change story

▪ If prior statements are never admitted for truth, there is incentive to tamper, or kill witness

▪ So, you should let them in

o Defense nightmare – Cop fabricates out of court confession

▪ If you always admit prior statements for truth, incentive for police to fabricate stories

▪ So, you should not let them in

▪ In CA cop can testify to statement with no proof

• Kinds of Statements

o Oral

▪ Testimony subject to cross

• Preliminary hearings, depositions

▪ Testimony not subject to cross

• Grand jury

▪ Oral statement not sworn to

• To cops, friends, etc.

o Written

▪ Sworn

▪ Signed, not sworn

▪ Not signed, not sworn

• Prior Inconsistent Statements

o Can always be used to impeach

▪ Except, at common law you could not impeach your own witness

• Rowe involved state overturning this rule

▪ But, still not admissible for truth under this theory

o Can be used for truth depending on Jx

▪ Must determine if deferred cross-examination is adequate

• If Witness changes story, denies, forgets ( cross at time of tiral is usually adequate ( Owens

• If Witness takes the 5th, disappears, or dies ( no chance at cross, so is not enough

▪ Rowe:

• reasons to let in for the truth, if Witness in court

o Better determine the truth

o Protection form changing witness stories

o Protection from witness tampering

o Witnesses protected from witness tampering

• Advantages of Prior statements

o Memory declines over time

o Witnesses more likely to forget facts that do not support their point of view over time

▪ What are your options?

• Three states do not allow prior inconsistent statements at all

• Others follow the federal rule

• Some allow substantive use for all prior statements

• Some only allow selective use, but not following federal rules

o NY allows substantive in civil, but not criminal cases

o FRE 801(d): inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or

o Deferred cross is adequate under confrontation clause: California v. Greene

▪ One Bite – need a chance to confront at some stage, even if not at trial

▪ Allowed in preliminary hearing testimony, subject to cross at the time

• Admitted making statemnt, but can’t remember the event

o Open questions

▪ What if witness takes the fifth?

• There isn’t really cross, so you might have confrontation clause issue

• Prior Consistent Statements

o FRE: consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or

▪ one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person

o Generally not allowed to buttress in-court testimony

▪ Could lead to an avalanche of documentation of prior consistent statements

▪ Want focus to be on courtroom, not outside events

o How they can come in

▪ To rebut charges of recent fabrication

• Show consistency despite motive to change, evidence of tampering

• Only if statement occurred before motive surfaced: Tome v. U.S.

o Motive for fabrication was to regain custody. Statements made after motvie appeared, kept out of court.

• Don’t want to raise possibility of recent fabrication as it might impact ability to use your evidence.

▪ To buttress in court identification

• Easy to point to Defendant, he is in defendant chair

• So, use out of court id to show that you can identify in less obvious circumstances

• U.S. Owens: out of court ID was only ID

o Allowed in when prison guard was beaten so severely he made ID, then lost all recollection of incident.

o No in court ID, but Scaliaa says there is enough for cross here.

o PROBLEM: no bite at the apple!!!! Only case we have seen with really no chance at confrontation

Prior Reported Testimony

• Developed out of need for appeals

o Given recording of trial testimony

o If witness is not available for second trial, you don’t’ want to throw away the prior testimony, subject to cross, in court, etc.

• Common Law Rule

o Can use prior recorded testimony so long as it is for

o same person,

o subject to cross by person with same motive

▪ satisfies confrontation, and trustworthiness

o on same matter

o in same proceeding

• Pressures on the common law rule

o Doesn’t need to be same proceeding

▪ Just same witness, same lawyer doing cross

o Doesn’t have to be same guy doing cross, just need motive to cross

o FRE stop at same proceeding and same matter

▪ FRE 804(b)(1) - Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

• Identity Issues

o Civil to Civil so long as against target party( Gaines v. Thomas

▪ First Trial: Martin v. Pearless

• Pearless calls Byers, says Martin(killed in accident) did it, Martin loses

▪ Second Trail: Gaines v. Martin

• Gaines uses Byers(died between two trials) testimony from first trial to meet production burden.

• Issue: different parties in the two different cases, can it still be used?

• Court: Yes, party against whom the testimony was used (Martin), had opportunity for cross on same matter in previous case.

o Had significant interst in both cases, same motive

▪ N.B. – can’t do this form civil to Criminal, state will ask different questions in crim trial than plaintiff if civil.

o Prior recorded testimony is a firmly rooted hearsay exception ( Ohio v. Roberts

▪ Witness testified at preliminary hearing after being called by defendant’s lawyer, saying defendant did not in fact have permission

▪ Transcript is used at trial, witness had disappeared

▪ Ok, there was chance for cross at preliminary hearing

• Sufficient indicia of reliability

• Firmly rooted hearsay exception

o Need only be predecessor in interest ( FRE, Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc.

▪ Case 1: Coast Guard v. Lloyd

• Case to revoke Lloyd’s license

• Lloyd testifies about a fight with Alvarez

• Cross: Coast guard

▪ Case 2: Lloyd v. American Exporter

• Alvarez is impled

• Lloyd disappears, American Export tries to use testimony from Coast guard case to give Lloyd’s side of the fight

• Cross: Alvarez, but Lloyd is unavailable

▪ Issues:

• Not same parties

• Not same person doing cross

▪ Court: allowed it in

o Constitutional limits: Ohio v. Roberts

▪ To us epropr recorded testimony you need

• Firmly established hearsay exception

• sufficient indicia of reliability

▪ ( Eliminated by Crawford

▪ Issue of testimony from preliminary hearing of witness unavailable at trial

o U.S. v. DiNapoli

▪ Prosecutor’s motive to develop testimony at grand jury is not similar enough to cross at trial

▪ Must have substantially similar intentisyt of interst

o Testimonial distinction: Crawford v. Washington

▪ Confrontation clause applies to formal testimony given out of court

▪ Scalia: purpose of confrontation clause is to prevent ex parte examinations coming in at trial

• Confrontation clause applies to more than just in court testimony

• Firmly rooted hearsay exception from Roberts is too broad, not sufficiently protectiv

Admissions

• FRE 801

o Not hearsay if:

▪ (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is

• (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or

• (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or (

• C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or

• (D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or

• (E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

▪ The contents of the statement shall be considered but are not alone sufficient to establish the declarant's authority under subdivision (C), the agency or employment relationship and scope thereof under subdivision (D), or the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered under subdivision (E).

• Types of Admissions

o Pure

o Adoptive

o Vicarious

▪ Authorized speech

▪ In course of employment

▪ Co-conspirators

• Rationale

o Functional

▪ Want to use confessions

o Intellectual

▪ Litigation is a game, if you make a mistake you can’t complain

▪ Self-cross – you can take stand and explain statement

• But, tension on 5th Amendment

• Hard to explain vicarious admission if you have no knowledge

• Implied and Adoptive Admissions

o Conduct – nonassertive conduct can be basis for admission

▪ But, not guilty plea, remedial measures after accident

o Adoptive Admission

▪ Voluntarily and knowingly ratify another’s statement that is inconsistent with trial position

o Silence, if:

▪ Comprehension: present and capable of hearing and undrstanding

▪ Capable of denying: physically and mentally able to deny

▪ Motive: opportunity and motive to deny, such that RP would have denied

• Adoption: Bill v. Farm Bureau

o Father shakes head when asked if he has any reason to doubt suicide

o Court allows at admission against interest

▪ Ambiguity is up to jury to unravel

▪ Mr. Bill adopted words

▪ Mrs. Bill adopted by silence

• Vicasirous by agent: U.S. v McKeon

o Statement by lawyer in first trial could come in to second trial

▪ Assertion of fact inconcicsten with similar assertions in a subsequent trial

• Vicarious by employee: Mahlandt v. Wild Canid

o Statements by Poos regarding a wolf hurting child

o Two notes to boss regarding bites can come in

▪ While he was in employ, against interst of D at time of trial

▪ Neuborne: but really, this is a spread the loss rationale

o Corporate minutes are not allowed in

▪ Statement by principle can’t bind the inferior

• Co-Conspirator exception: a legal fiction

o Each conspirator is an agent for the other

o Bourjaily v. US

▪ Bootstrapping rule: can’t use out of court evidence to prove a conspiracy in order to get in evidence that will porve conspiracy

▪ Judge can admit evidence without regard to the rule of evidence, so you CAN bootstrap

• Under federal rules, you need stateemtn and something else

o Here, you have statement and hsowing up together with the car

▪ Rule: court can consider hearsay statement itself to determine existence of conspiracy

▪ Confrontation clause issues

• Witness unavialabel to testify

• Analysed under Ohio v Roberts

o Firmly established exception? YES

▪ Old, even if not analytically defendable

o Partiuclaried guarantees of reliability?

▪ Rehnquist: Not necessary for firmly rooted

• If had been under Crawford:

o Not an issue because this is non-testimonial, so confrontation clause does not apply.

=

Hearsay Exceptions

• strength of input leg

o statement at time is probably better than cross in court

o present sense impression

o declarations of physical pain

o excited utterances

• strength of output leg

o usually require declarant to be unavailable

o prior recorded testimony

o declarations against interest

• to the point where you don’t need cross examination

Declaration Against Interest

Second Best Exception

• Key to argument: aware and sophisticated about psychology underlying declaration against interest exception

o Based on psychological assumption that declarant’s perception of reality and the declarant’s description does not need to undergo cross examination as much as we want most testimony to undergo cross.

o Something special going on in declarant’s head

o Difference from admissions: those are an issue of game theory, for declarations we think there is something reliable about them.

• Interests

o Penal

▪ Modern development

▪ Exculpatory Statements: People v. Brown

• First case whwere declarationsa against penal interst are allowed

• Corroboration si only that cop heard witness sya it

o Not that statemnt was true

• Issue of Due Process if you don’t allow it in

o Exculpatory for defendant

• Riases issue of the ease of manufacturing declaratiosn against interest

o Get a guy in prison of rlife to testify

o Under FRE need corroborating evidence to allow declaration from person in for life

▪ Inculpatory Declaration against penal interest: Williamson

• Statement is only the piece that actually inculpates the person making the statement

o Changed common law: in states still using common law, you can use declarations against interest against any person for whom the declaration is against his or her interest

o If you inculpate another it might be to limit your culpability, so not really against your interst.

• So, could have admission against guy who said it

o But, not against guy he inculpates with statement – Williamson

o Avoids confrontation clause issues

o Pecuniary

▪ Most traditional category

▪ Cole v. Cole

• Statement of decedent that he couldn’t contribute to purchase of home

• Was a statement against his pecuniary property right interest, otherwise he would own half of house with new wife

• But, look to when statement was made: at time he got to live in house for free, so the model is susceptible to manipulation, looks like it doesn’t work very well.

▪ Carpenter v. Davis

• “yes, I know(I pulled out in front of you) it wasn’t your fault,” then dies.

• Holding

o “yes, I know” is admissible as a declaration against interest

▪ she had personal knowledge

o “it’s not your fault” is inadmissible as opinion

▪ did not have personal knowledge of fault (legal concept)

• but, she might have said it just to get help as she lay dying

• probably onl admissible in civil, not criminal, context

•

Spontaneous, Contemporaneous and Excited Utterances

• First Best Exception

o Out of court is actually better than in court testimony

• History

o Res gestae – all bound up in the event

▪ Speech at time of event is treated as behavior and not speech

o Elements

▪ Excited utterances

• “oh my God” exception

• verbal reflex

▪ Present sense impression

• Extension of excited utterance

• If taken seriously, it wipes out hearsay

• Brought in by Houston Oxygen

o “if they continue to drive ike that, they will have accident”

o person who hears this testifies

• Present Sense Impression: Commonwealth v. Coleman

o Hysterical daughter tells mom boyfriend will kill her, then phone goes dead

o Majority found this to be a present sense impression

▪ Narrative virtually simultaneous with the event

o Concurrence: excited utterance

▪ But too much time passed between utterance and killing

o Confrontation

▪ Ohio v. Roberts: might not pass

▪ Crawford: non-testimonial, so fine

• Excited utterance: Davis v. Washington

o 911 operator can testify to woman saying boyfriend is attacking her, but not to spelling of name, etc.

o like statements re treatment to doctor

▪ need to know you are being attacked, but not spelling of name

▪ Physical or Mental Condition of Declarant

• Types

o Declarations of present bodily condition

▪ Moans and groans

o Declarations of present mental state

▪ Must intend to assert mental state

• Silence: Fidelity v. Jones

o Issue of when silence is a statement

▪ Here, did not mention feeling ill, so death may be accidental

▪ Admitted as implied statement, non-assertive statement of physical state

o Pushes model, might feel bad but not say anything

• Statements re past abuse if relevant to doctor’s treatment: U.S. v. Tome

o Won’t lie to get proper medical treatment

• Pure mental state: U.S. v. DiMaria

o Statement to cops that he was only here to get some cheap cigarettes

▪ Relavent to material legal issue: mens rea

▪ His state of mind when he was found: intending to get cheap or stolen cigarettes?

• Hillmon-Shepard Dichotomy

o You can use state of mind to go forward in time, but not backward

▪ Except for probate litigation

o What person did in future: Hillmon

▪ Letters show an intention to go where body found.

▪ Needed to show actions in future consistent with intent

o What third person did in past: Shepard

▪ Wife poisoned

▪ Husband uses prior statements to show she was suicidal

• Forward looking into declarant’s state of mind

• ( allowed in

▪ Tells nurse that she thinks husband poisoned her

• Could be used to rebut suicidal tendencies (state of mind)

• Can’t be used to inculpate husband because it is backward looking about a third person - desired for truth of statement

• Coudlnt’ be dying declaration, she wasn’t certain that she was dying

o Statement of future intent including third person is admissible: Pheaster

▪ Decedant said he was going to meet Angelo

▪ Prosecution uses it to show that Angelo met with him

▪ Psychological model breaks down no reason to believe third party would act in accordance with someone’s intentions

o Application: Annunziata

▪ Labor racketeering for $200

▪ 5 Statements

• 1. We are going to enforce the contract, not a social call, picked up envelope

o picking up envelope is fine, witness testimony

o not a social call, enforcing contract – admission against interest made by D

▪ as measured when made

• 2. Annunziata asks if anyone is here to see him, told he is on his way, goes into trailer

o admission

• 3. President tells assistant to take envelope to New Have to fulfill commitment

o President dead before trial

o Shows that envelope traveled, but does not prove contents

• 4. President tells bookkeeper to take $300, put it in envelope and give to Mayhew in order to pay someone on the job

o forward looking – Hillmon

• 5. Son testifies that president told him that Annunziata wants a payoff, so I am going to have to pay him $250

o extension of Hillmon – forward looking statement accompanied by an explanation from the very recent past,

▪ moving Hillmon from civil to criminal case

o could also try to get it in on a co-conspirator theory

▪ un-indicted co-conspirator

▪ made in furtherance of conspiracy

▪ But, would have to establish the conspiracy by something more than the statement

o Non-testimonial Hillmon, co-conspirator, both of which fall outside of Scalia’s definition of the ocnfrontatin clause

▪ Crawford – pulls out confrontation safety net, need to look at evidence rules more closely

• Business Entries and Public Records

• Two Ways to deal with forgetful witnesses

o Refreshing Recollection – Present Recollection Refresh

▪ Rule 612

▪ Steps

• 1. Establish that witness has forgotten

• 2. Mark document for identification, or have it admitted to evidence

• 3. Show it to the witness

o adversary also gets to see it

• 4. Is you memory refreshed?

• 5. Take back the document.

• 6. Do you remember?

▪ Issue: Does this actually refresh recollection or create new memory?

o Past Recollection Recorded

▪ FRE 803.5

▪ Severe Restrictions

• Persondoesnt’t remember

• Nothing can refresh recollection

• Did there ever come a time when you did know?

• Did you do anything?

o I wrote it down, etc.

• How long was it after you saw that you recorded?

o Must show it was fairly immediate, when knowledge was fresh

• Was your recording accurate?

• Then you mark paper for ID

• Show it to witness

• Witness identifies it

• Read paper

o Only time you can read something into evidence when it is not in evidence

o Can’t admit actual piece of paper

▪ Why not?

• Exception,

o should be treated conservatively

• Power of Paper

o Remember more of what you see and touch than what you hear.

• Business Records

o Second best exception – person in court remembering would be best, but we can’t have that

▪ Don’t need unavailabity, just can’t remember

o Remember to analyse how many levels of hearsay excsted before it was ritten down

o FRE 803(6)

▪ Requirements

• Record

• Made or transmitted at time of occucrence

• By Person with knowledge

• Made in the regular course of business

• Kept in the ordinary course of business

• Memoranda to file by lawyer admitted: Jacoby

o Even though it looks like a CYA

o Only needs to be product of regular practice, business in the usual course. Routineness is not required.

▪ i.e. need not happen every day, but it shouldn’t be unusual

• records anticipating litigation are not business records: Palmer v. Hoffman

o report created after railroad accident by RR company was not part of the usual business of operating a railroad.

▪ Not part of “inherent nature” of the business

o Creating records to avoid liability undercuts basic justification for business records: that they are inrheently trustworthy because company relies on them to conduct business

o Investigative records are not as reliable as corporate records

o Irony: inculpatory stuff comes in, exculpatory kept out

▪ Inculpatory in record would be declarationa against interest, vicarious admission

▪ Exculpatory is neither, and not business record

• Every layer must be examines: Johnson v Lutz

o Business duty to treport at each layer, or some other exception

o Cop has duty to report, but witness that described scene to him does not

• Government Records: Beech Aircraft v. Rainey

o FRE 803(8)(c) – does allow the admission of factually based conclusions or opinions

▪ So long as it has trustworthiness

o Can be used exculpatorily, but not inculpatorily

o State of things now

▪ If you see accident self ( ok to admit

▪ If you investigate based on hard facts, then give opinion ( ok

▪ If you make opinion based on 3rd party statements ( NOT ok

o Why are government records different?

▪ Don’t have market based rationale for success

▪ Can’t be allowed in criminal prosecutions – governemtn is the prosecutor

▪ Don’t want to prevent government fomr preparing htem of rfear they will be used against gov. in litigation

• Medical Records: Commonwealth v. DiGiacomo

o Medical records can be used fro fact of hospitalization, treatment prescribed, and symptoms given. But, not for medical opinion or diagnosiss where doctor is unavailable

o Why?

▪ Medical records are relied on in life and death situations

•

Miscellaneous Exceptions

• FRE 807 Requirements

o Circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness

o Evidence of material fact

o Moreprobative on point that nayon other evidence you could get with reasonable efforts

o Admission would best serve general purposes of rule and interets of justice

o Provide notice to other party

• Many jurisdictions don’t have such a catchall

• Civil v. Criminal

o Originally thought would only be for civil cases

o But, over half of cases are criminal

▪ Pressure from Crawford

• If testimonial, kicked out so you can’t even try catchall

• Robinson v. Shapiro

o Out of court testimony of employee admitted under residual exception because it was trustworthy, only way too get at this information

o Good fiath efforts to find employee

• Idaho v. Wright

o Testimony of 2.5 year old to doctor re sexual abuse not admitted under residual exception because ti was not sufficiently reliable

▪ Analysed under Ohio v. Roberts

▪ Moot under Crawford

Constitutional Considerations

• Crawford v. Washington

o Rule

▪ If statement is testimonial ( requires cross-examination

• Need at least one bite

▪ If non-testimonial ( admissible according to FRE

• 6th Amendment does not apply

• Davis v. Washington

o What is testimonial?

▪ Police questioning at home

• After incident, no ongoing emergency

• Purpose is to establish or prove past events

▪ Stationhouse interrogation (Crawford)

• Gather information about husband stabbing

▪ Lab reports – Melendez-Diaz

• Government must produce lab technician

o Very expensive

o But, labs are often inaccurate

o What is not-testimonial?

▪ 911 call

• speaking about events as they happen

• not describing past events

o Factors

▪ Who

• Government is more likely to be testimonial than private party

▪ When

• Narrating present events ( non-testimonial

• Describing past events ( testimonial

▪ How

• Assertive statements

• Operative/functional statements

▪ Why

• To meet an ongoing emergency ( non-testimonial

• To relay information ( testimonial

• This all only applies to Hearsay

o If it is non-hearsay it is by definition non-testimonial because it is not for the truth of the matter asserted

• What does Crawford do to other cases?

o California v. Greene

▪ No impact, witness was crossed at preliminary hearing.

o Tome v. united States

o U.S. v. Owens

▪ Prison guard who can’t remember attack

▪ No impact, lapsed memory witness is technically available for cross

• Can still try to make argument that he is not available

o Ohio v. Roberts

▪ No impact, testimony was subject to cross at prelim. Hearing

o Bourjaily

▪ Coconspirator statements are usually non-tesitmmonial

o WIllimason v U.S.

▪ Declaratiosn aginst interst that inculpate 3rd party

▪ No chance for cross, testimonial

▪ So< Crawford would throw this out

o Idaho v. Wright

▪ No chanc eot cross, because witness too young

▪ But, might be non-testimonial, description to doctor

Circumstantial Evidence

Raw Probability

• Circumstantial evidence

o Inferential reasoning

o Traditiaonlly disfavored, could not rest criminal conviction on circumstantial evidence alone

o Neuborne: False dichotomy

▪ Spectrum of probability based on how likely evidence is telling us something meaningful about what we are trying to prove

o Circumstnatial evidence charge would result in acquittals mso tof the time it is given, but does not actually happen because juries ignore it

• Reliance on statistics

o Purest of circumstantial evidence

o Information about a group that an individual belongs to

▪ Could be actually an incorrect association – easy to deal with

• Ignore it

▪ But, What if group statistics are accurate?

• Life expectancy based on race or gender

• Raises issues for life insurance premiums, pension payments

• Higher for blacks because they will collect sooner

• Lower for women because they will collect for longer

▪ Issues

• Causation and correlation

• Forward looking

• Backward looking?

▪ How fine a group to you draw?

o Bright line between future and past

• Reasons to Use Statistics

o Predictive Judgment

▪ How long will someone live? How will a juror vote?

▪ Neuborne: strongest argument

• Commonly used, except when it violates our right to determine our own sense of self

o Motive for past Action

▪ Crime was racially motivated

• Deviation from statistical norm to infer racially biased action

o Causation of past action

▪ Harder

▪ Pharmaceutical suits

• Correlation between taking a drug and existence of birth defects

• Can you use statisticl correlation to satisfy production burden so you can reach the jury?

• Otherwise Judge will dismiss the case

• Issue with correlation not being the cause.

o Proof that past act actually occurred

▪ Hardest

▪ Hillmon

• Can’t use hearsay to say what happened in the past

• Smith v. Rapid Transit

o Statistically likey that bus company bus ran someone over

o Not allowed in

▪ Backward looking causation of prior accident

▪ Fial to even reach a trial

o But, if you added in even the most unreliable eye witness, you might be able to get to trial

• State v. Rolls

o Blood type analysis as statistical evidence allowed, because there was also a general ID of perp by victim.

▪ Shaky eyewitness evidence allows for entrance of statistical evidence

•

Evidence of prior Wrongdoing

• Risks

o 1st Level: If they hunker down and don’t say anything, risk that past will come to haunt them

o 2nd Level: If testify, what level of risk is there with past coming out in cross?

o 3rd level: when defendant opens door

▪ tries to use past to help him/her

• 1st Level: Propensity evidence can’t be used: Zackowitz

o Man owned several guns, tear gas gun, then shoots man that insults his wife

o Is arsenal relevant to state of mind?

▪ No

o Principles

▪ Each litigant starts life anew, can’t bring in past.

▪ Because past is so relevant, so used by people to determine how a person will act.

▪ Will get convictions because people believe that bad people do bad things. You will get false convictions.

• But, many Exceptions

o M: Motive

▪ Most cases

o I: Intent

o M: Mistake, Absence of

o I: Identity

▪ Relevant to modus operandi

o C: Common Course of Conduct

o Under FRE 404(b)

▪ Motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident

• 1st Level: Tax returns must be relevant to the charges: Accardo

o One general admonition to not read papers is not enough

o Government used prior year tax returns that were not relevant to charges

▪ Inadmissible

▪ Iacullo: can use prior evidence if in remarkable conformity with pattern of charged offenses

• 1st Level: possession of tool for crime is allowed in if it shows evidence of intent to rejoin criminal activities already in progress: Montalvo

o while in the middle of a drug deal, man was found with knife encrusted with cocaine.

o Allowed in as evidence of intent to rejoin crime and cut the drugs.

o Neuborne: Wrong. This is really just evidence of prior criminal activities

• Evidence of prior drug sales can come in to prove intent to distribute real drugs: People v. Steele

o Consumer protection case to protect cops from fake drug buys

o Neuborne: Wrong.

• 3rd Level: insanity defense only allows prosecution to bring in evidence tending to prove hteir theory of the case (explosive personality) Santarelli

o couldn’t bring in general anger, had to have known trigger

o the rebuttal you choose limits you, try to get a broad rebuttal

• 3rd Level: can present evidence of other acts occurring if there is sufficient evidence to support finding by jury that it happened: Huddleston

o overthrew common law clear and convincing standard

▪ many states still follow

o need enough evidence that reasonable jury could find by preponderance that other act happened

o Easier to bring in past acts

▪ Based on a plain meaning reading of FRE, instead of looking to rationale

• When counts are joined, one based on misinformation, retrial: Castillo

o Prosecution must be careful how and when to join counts

• Special rules for Sexual Offenses: mound

o FRE 413-15 are constitutional

▪ Must consider possibility of prejudice

o ( fundamental change from prior regime

▪ originally, Defendant is shielded from his past, victim has past out in open

▪ For sex crimes, defendant’s past is open, victim is shielded

Character Evidence

• Evidence of arrest for dissimilar crimes can be admitted for character evidence: Michelson

o Neuborne: this is indefensible

o Once D brings up good character, P can bring in bad

o Good character is broader than charged crime

o Character witness can only give testimony based on hearsay

• Move away from Character to Opinion Evidence

o Ask person their own opinion of D

o Can get in specific instances

• Burgeon v. State

o For self-defense, reputation is relevant only if D knew reputation of Victim

o But, under NV evidence rules, chacter of victim is admissible even if D did not know it.

• Rape Shield: evidence of prior sexual conduct must be relevant and material to fact at tissue, more probative than prejudicial: White v. State

o Evidence of sex for drugs in past kept out because it would not explain false rape claim, only hwy she is upset.

• Crumpton

o Daughter was allowed to submit character evidence to show that father was not type of person to rape a woman in accidental civil case.

Prior Similar Acts

• C in Mimic: common course of Conduct

• Dallas Railway

o Evidence of behavior on the same ride was allowed in because it was all part of the same conduct

• Johnson v. Elk Lake

o Prior alleged sexual assault properly kept out because of uncertainty regarding intentionality, dissimilarities between acts, and isolated nature of incident

• Habit and Custom

•

• Halloran v. Virginia Chemicals

o Ok to admit evidence of habit when using Freon

o Issue of impeachment

▪ You can’t prove impeachment for collateral fact

▪ This is not a collateral fact

o Can only impeach with habit testimony

▪ Not a general showing of character

▪ Actual specific behavior

▪ Need to connect and have sufficient quantity

o Neuborne: doesn’t seem to be difference between civil and criminal standard for this in the rules of evidence

•

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download